NotfromFifehonest Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 (edited) Not having that much of a clue myself SN, isn't the theory that investors who previously bought-in at full price are compelled to keep going now................when they buy into the 2nd issue at, say, 25p then the average they have paid per share of their portfolio actually reduces. If/when the clumpany make the top division and become a more viable and valuable entity, then you have the prospect of being able to sell-up at a profit (or exiting without much of a loss at least). The alternative of not ploughing in more is the greater evil if it means you are gonna lose 100% of your original punt should things go completely tits-up. It is the proverbial money pit where you've gotta keep going to finish off the project. A silly analogy might be a (big) house renovation where you've gotta finish it off despite mounting costs in order to have some sort of finished asset at the end. Edited June 7, 2014 by NotfromFifehonest 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotfromFifehonest Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 The only people who will put money in is the spivs, they have already shown over and over an appetite to increase their stranglehold. Stranglehold over what Tedi? The big money has already left the building and is a pile of bricks in Normandy/chez McSalary, etc. The assets are safely secured with the company but I can't see an enourmous worth in them. They're still gonna have to be rented-out to The Rangers or The The Rangers MkIII or whatever the footballing divion of the business is called. As is plain, that division is a lemon which seems only capable of competing in sporting terms by consistently overspending. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotfromFifehonest Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 This type of line has been spun before, yet still Laxey and the Easdales bought more shares, they did not make sure that clause enabling them to buy more was put in place at the last AGM for nothing and it was not by accident that it was mentioned yet again with the 120 day review. What you say there simply seems to reinforce my earlier observation about being compelled to keep going. Going back to the house renovation analogy, you can't just stop half way through before the project is something that can be sold-on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotfromFifehonest Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 My only question is why Laxey etc don't just be done with it by selling the footballing division to Dave King or some fan group for £1????? Just keep hold of the assets in lieu of the massive sums owed by the International to the parent company and then rent them back to DK's Rangers or whoever. Let them suk-up the massive ongoing losses that division is gonna incur to keep their beloved 'Rangers' name alive. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 The original spivs played a blinder with this club/company thing. They knew how much the history meant to the fans, so it was an easy sell, since then the gullible orcs have been telling everyone that will listen, totally unaware that the very lie they were repeating, was driving another nail into an already buried coffin. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 (edited) Double glazing prices rocket in Dundee. Edited June 8, 2014 by AberdeenBud 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing (2) Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 “You’ve only got two years of history.” Dundee United have pushed relations with Rangers to breaking point. They have declared: “You’ve only got two years of history.” Tannadice chairman Stephen Thompson delivered the incendiary put-down to Light Blues Chief Executive Graham Wallace in negotiations over youngster Charlie Telfer. Rangers wanted £175,000 to £200,000 in compensation for the development of the player from the age 12 to 18. But United countered with £50,000, arguing only the time since the 2012 liquidation of the Ibrox club is relevant. That’s infuriated the Govan outfit, who squashed talks to await the verdict of an independent panel early next season. It is the latest in a series of conflicts between the clubs, stretching back to United’s involvement in the decision not to allow Rangers to play in the SPL in 2012-13. In deciding to reject an offer from Rangers in order to switch to Dundee United as a free agent this summer, the Scotland Under-19 cap raised more than a few eyebrows. Seen as one of the brightest products of the Murray Park youth system, he was tipped as a future Ibrox first team star. Yet if the failure to hold onto the midfielder irked some Rangers fans, it should be nothing to the reaction to news of United’s inflammatory stance in subsequent compensation talks. Under Scottish regulations, clubs who lose a player under the age of 23 through freedom of contract are entitled to payment for his development and training. The scheme protects those who invest heavily in youth development, only to see their best prospects snapped up by bigger clubs. In exploratory talks about Telfer, Rangers — using the ready reckoner for such cases — asked for a payment of between £175,000 and £200,000 for bringing Telfer through from the age of 12. Tangerines chairman Stephen Thompson, though, offered just £50,000. He dismissed all but the last two years as irrelevant — because in his eyes Rangers only came into existence in 2012. That stance has infuriated the club and will provoke a similar reaction from the Light Blues support. The liquidation of two years ago is not disputed. But, they assert, the purchase of business and assets by the new company covered Rangers’ illustrious history, including the world record 54 titles and seven domestic Trebles. Now, with no agreement reached, the validity of United’s argument — centring on the successful departures of stars such as Steven Davis, Steven Naismith, and Steven Whittaker in 2012 for nothing — is set to be decided by an independent panel. Likely to include a law lord, it should take place early in the new season. The news will do nothing for already strained relations between the two clubs. Many Light Blues fans blamed Thompson for the fact the newco was not allowed to join the SPL two years ago. He was involved in the move to open up the vote to all clubs, the catalyst for the so called “Arab Spring” of fan opposition. With many Rangers fans already annoyed at the Tangerines’ failure to honour tickets for an abandoned league fixture four years ago, the Scottish Cup tie between the pair at Tannadice was subject to a fan boycott. Since then, there has been the rancour over this season’s Scottish Cup semi-final. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weirdcal Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Thompson jealous of the adulation of Turnbull Hutton. hes got a point. £150k to bdo and £50k to a rangers who wouldn't play him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz FFC Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Used to hate the Thompson family. Used to. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 The scheme protects those who invest heavily in youth development, only to see their best prospects snapped up by bigger clubs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BossHogg Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 If Thompson actually believes this and it is not just about money then he should be offering BDO £150k, surely. No doubt the authorities will slap United down for this outrageous slur?,,,,,or as I suspect Rangers will bottle it and "come to an agreement "with them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 If Thompson actually believes this and it is not just about money then he should be offering BDO £150k, surely. Why should he offer BDO money? They look after a different club. If anything your point should be that The Rangers owe BDO (rangers). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BossHogg Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Just like the Setanta money when it comes to actually proving Rangers are the same old club,,,,they'll be mysteriously quiet?! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 If Thompson actually believes this and it is not just about money then he should be offering BDO £150k, surely. Are the BDO looking for money for a former player? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing (2) Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 You could always ask them. No need, I'm sure it will get mentioned here http://www.bdo.co.uk/services/business-restructuring/rfc-2012-plc-formerly-the-rangers-football-club-plc-in-liquidation when the next report comes out in a few days time 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 If Thompson actually believes this and it is not just about money then he should be offering BDO £150k, surely. BDO are not a football development company why would United pay them any money? If anything new Rangers should have paid old Rangers a development fee. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Just like the Setanta money when it comes to actually proving Rangers are the same old club,,,,they'll be mysteriously quiet?! Even more similar is when FIFA stepped in and declared that McGregor's transfer to Besiktas was legal and no fee was due to the new club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Steven thompson stirring up trouble again, who'd have thunked it? (i'm sure this'll get some more season tickets sold for him, crafty..) He has a history of doing stuff like this (Partick Thistle recently), now it'll go to a hearing/tribunal and thats that. The only thing i'm worried about is that our board uses this to get some bears to take their eyes off the ball. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Steven thompson stirring up trouble again, who'd have thunked it? (i'm sure this'll get some more season tickets sold for him, crafty..) He has a history of doing stuff like this (Partick Thistle recently), now it'll go to a hearing/tribunal and thats that. The only thing i'm worried about is that our board uses this to get some bears to take their eyes off the ball. Phew, Bennett is not worried enough to tell us all how unworried he is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.